Wrightslaw l No Child Left Behind l IDEA 2004 l Fetaweb l Yellow Pages for Kids l Harbor House Law Press

 Home > News > U. S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Arlington v. Murphy


The Special Ed Advocate
It's Unique ... and Free!

Enter your email address below:

 

2014 - 2015 Training Program

Aug 2 - Birmingham, AL

Aug 3-8 - Wmsburg, VA

Aug 21 - Norfolk, VA

Oct 23 - Wilton, CT

Oct 25 - Olympia, WA

Oct 30 - Phoenix, AZ

Nov 6 - McAllen, TX

Nov 21 - Temecula, CA

Dec 4 - OKC, OK

Full Schedule

Be a Hero ...

 Candle in window
... to a Hero
Learn more

Wrightslaw

Home
Topics from A-Z
Free Newsletter
Seminars & Training
Consultations
Yellow Pages for Kids
Press Room
FAQs
Sitemap

Books & Training

Wrightslaw Books & DVDs
Wrightslaw Storesecure store lock
  Advocate's Store
  Student Bookstore
  Exam Copies
Training Center
Bulk Discounts
New! Military Discounts
Mail & Fax Orders

Advocacy Library

Articles
Doing Your Homework
Ask the Advocate
FAQs
Newsletter Archives
Summer School Series
Success Stories
Tips

Law Library

Articles
Caselaw
IDEA 2004
No Child Left Behind
McKinney-Vento Homeless
FERPA
Section 504
Fed Court Complaints

Topics

Advocacy
ADD/ADHD
Allergies
Assistive Technology
Autism Spectrum
Behavior & Discipline
Bullying
College/Continuing Ed
Damages
Discrimination
Due Process
Early Intervention (Part C)
Eligibility
ESY
Evaluations
FAPE
Flyers
Future Planning
Harassment
High-Stakes Tests
Homeless Children
IDEA 2004
Identification & Child Find
IEPs
Juvenile Justice
Law School & Clinics
Letters & Paper Trails
LRE/Inclusion
Mediation
Military / DOD
No Child Left Behind
NCLB Directories
NCLB Law & Regs
Parental Protections
PE and Adapted PE
Privacy & Records
Procedural Safeguards
Progress Monitoring
Reading
Related Services
Research Based Instruction
Response to Intervention (RTI)
Restraints/Abuse
Retention
Retaliation
School Report Cards
Section 504
Self-Advocacy
Teachers & Principals
Transition
Twice Exceptional (2e)
VA Special Education

Resources & Directories

Advocate's Bookstore
Advocacy Resources
Directories
  Disability Groups
  International
  State DOEs
  State PTIs
Free Flyers
Free Pubs
Free Newsletters
Legal & Advocacy
Glossaries
   Legal Terms
   Assessment Terms
Best School Websites

 

U. S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in
Arlington v. Murphy
by Peter W. D. Wright, Esq.

Print this page

On Wednesday, April 19, 2006, the U. S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Arlington Central School District v. Pearl Murphy and Theodore Murphy (2nd Cir. 2005)

On the morning of Friday, April 21, the Justices met to vote on the outcome of the case.

Pete Wright attended oral argument and took notes of the questions asked by the Justices. In this article, Pete shares his notes, observations and impressions of this case.

The Issue

The issue is whether prevailing parents in a special education due process hearing can be reimbursed for their expert witness fees as a part of the costs.

The statute reads, “the court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of the costs to a prevailing party who is the parent of a child with a disability . . .” (See 20 USC §1415(i)(3)(B) in Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, page 116)

Legislative History

Statute Amended to Include Attorneys Fees

In 1986, the special education statute was amended to authorize reimbursement for attorneys’ fees incurred by parents. For fifteen years after this amendment, Courts routinely interpreted the amendment as also authorizing the reimbursement of expert witness fees. Over time, some Courts began to question the rule. Eventually, a split developed among the Circuit Courts of Appeal.

Expert Witness Fees

The legislative history surrounding the 1986 amendment established that the Joint Statement of the House and Senate issued in conjunction with the 1986 amendment identified “as compensable expenses expert witness fees, costs of tests and evaluations, and all other litigation costs and expenses reasonably expended by the parents, which plainly includes consultant fees. Finally courts have routinely reimbursed parent for the costs of non-testifying experts.” (Murphy Brief, page 19)

The school district argued that the phrase “reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of the costs” is clear and unambiguous and does not include expert witness fees or consultant fees.

If a statute is unclear and is ambiguous, the U. S. Supreme Court may look to legislative intent for guidance and clarification. If the statute is not ambiguous, then the Court is supposed to look at the plain language in the statute.

The parents argued that when the statute was amended in 1986 to include the phrase “attorneys’ fees and costs”, the phrase “costs” included expert witness fees and also the costs of consultants who may not be called as witnesses.

The school district argued that the plain language of “costs” only means such items as photocopy fees.

Questions by the Justices

The questions by the Justices focused on these issues. Many questions posed were not questions, but were the Justice's opinions phrased as questions.

For example, Justice Kennedy asked, “Haven’t we previously said that Conference Committee Reports are of no value to us?”

By contrast, Justice Souter asked, “Don’t trial lawyers incur expenses when they hire experts?”

Justice Stevens asked the USA/USDOE attorney, “Since the statute is ambiguous, don’t we look to legislative intent?”

Justice Kennedy responded, “But isn’t the gravamen of your argument that the phrase is unambiguous?”

Justice Stevens jumped in, saying, “At that time, in 1986, wasn’t it well-settled that the Courts would look at legislative intent?”

Justice Scalia countered, “But you don’t look at legislative history if it is not ambiguous.”

Later, Chief Justice Roberts said, “I understand that expert witness fees are often more expensive that attorneys’ fees. What prevented Congress from putting it in the statute [at that time]?”

Parent attorney David Vladeck responded, “Given the context and use of the word “costs” at that time, Congress thought that they put it in ... the statute must be looked at at the time of conception ...”

Justice Souter said “Doesn’t all this [discussion] mean that the statute is ambiguous, and given that, we must look at the legislative history?”

Chief Justice Roberts jumped in. “But if it is ambiguous, what about the restrictive nature of spending clause legislation [that statutes must be narrowly construed]?”

Justice Kennedy responded, “Couldn’t this case be the Magna Carta to establish a whole new breed of experts?” [Laughter]

Justice Ginsburg queried: “What about testing and evaluations, aren’t they costs?”

This is how the debate swung back and forth between the Justices.

The Vote

After listening to oral argument, it was my sense that the Supreme Court will decide that the word “costs” does not include reimbursement for expert witness fees.

The vote on Friday, April 21, 2006, was probably 5-4 or 6-3, with the majority in favor of the school district.

Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer appeared to align with the parents’ position. At one point, Justice Ginsburg seemed to align with the school district. Her subsequent questions seemed to favor the parents.

The Decision

After the vote on April 21, the Justices will decide who will write the majority opinion and who will write the dissent. Drafts will be written and distributed back and forth among the Justices. Eventually, consensus will be reached and the decision will be published.

I expect the decision to be published before this term ends in June, 2006.

NOTE: Parent attorneys who attended oral argument included Matt Bogin, Michael Eig, Siran Falders, Elizabeth Greczek, Bill Hurd, Haylie Iseman, and Wayne Steedman.

School board attorneys who attended included Darcy Kriha and Julie Heuberger Yura. In addition, Donald Ayer who represented Florence County in Shannon Carter v. Florence County School District IV attended.

For a comprehensive discussion of this case, including links to earlier decisions and briefs, please go to the
Arlington v. Murphy page.


To Top

Created: 04/23/06
Latest Update: 06/29/09



Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon The Special Ed Advocate: It's Free!

 

Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, by Pam and Pete Wright
About the Book

Wrightslaw: All About IEPs
About the Book

Wrightslaw: All About Tests and Assessments
About the Book

Surviving Due Process: Stephen Jeffers v. School Board
About the DVD Video

 

Copyright 1998-2014, Peter W. D. Wright and Pamela Darr Wright. All rights reserved.

Contact Us | Press Mission l Our Awards l Privacy Policy l Disclaimer l Site Map

25% OFF Wrightslaw Products

Wrightslaw Summer Sale!


Now Shipping!

Wrightslaw: All About Tests and Assessments
About the Book

Check it out!

Wrightslaw Store

The Advocate's Store

Get Help!

Blog the Wrightslaw

Wrightslaw on Facebook

Find us on Facebook

Wrightslaw Books

Student Discounts

Military Discounts


Wrightslaw: All About IEPs

About the Book
To Order

Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, by Pam and Pete Wright
About the Book
To Order


About the Book

To Order


Surviving Due Process: Stephen Jeffers v. School Board

About the DVD Video
To Order


To Order


Wrightslaw: No Child Left Behind

About the Book
To Order

Wrightslaw Multimedia Training


Understanding Your Child's
Test Scores (1.5 hrs)

Understanding Your Child's Test Scores

Learn More
To Order
Retail Price: $
24.95
Wrightslaw Special: $14.95

Special Education Law & Advocacy Training
(6.5 hrs)


Wrightslaw WebEx Special Education Law & Training Program (6.5 hrs)


Learn More
To Order
Retail Price: $99.95
Wrightslaw Special: $49.95